workhorse ballasts and T5's
 

Looking for something more than the typical "well i read on RC"...

Anyone know / have literature as to why fulham workhorse ballasts burn out T5's faster than a triad / icecap ballast? And specifically, how much is the life expectancy reduced?

Googled my arse off tonight, and I'm starting to think it's one of those internet myths - as I can't find anything backing up the claim - but everyone seems to repeat it.

Well, I read on RC .... just kidding. But what I have to offer may not be all that more useful anyhow because it's based on what I've heard over the years, RC or whatever. But since it beats real work, I'm typing this in anyhow. The difference between NO and HO and VHO is the amperage the current is carried over (bear in mind I am not an electrician and am not trying to be, so for you electricians out there getting a facial tick reading my statement, sorry about the facial tick, go get a coffee or something :) ). And anyhow, a Fulham ballast, I thought did output at the VHO amperage whereas the Icecap ballast outputs more at the HO amperage. I know that there are all kinds of other differences like frequencies and whatnot, but that is what I would guess is something to do with the T5's lasting longer. Icecap's claim to fame all along has been that lamps last longer on their ballasts (halides or fluorescents) and it seems to me that they generally seem to acheive this by underdriving lamps, but tweaking things like frequencies so that the output lux are "close enough."

Which Icecap ballasts are we talking about here?

Basically the work hoarse Ballast would Over Drive a T-5 thus making it burn out faster....How much faster I really don't know....Seems like an experiment to me!!!

I don't see why, aren't the workhorse series designed to work with HO T5s? Or am I missing something?

Now this is where it gets sticky, because some say it overdrives, some say the start pulses are wrong... The list goes on and on as far as reasons.

Icecap ballasts do overdrive bulbs - that we do know... Not sure how they get the longer life while doing it however.

I agree that its the starting of the workhorse that causes the drop in lifetime but as far as overdriving i think thats common for both. On a side note there was a really cool thread about overdriving NO lamps but i lost the link here is a spin off of it with a really cool experiment.

http://www.aquariumpros.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=186

Cheers,
Ken

Do we know that Icecap gets longer lamp life? I have been shopping for t5's as well and the info I have been able to find is very contradictory from one source to the next. One retailer I trust tells me the IC 660 shortens lamp life because it is overdriven. He actually sells both Tek II(new version with the wh) and IC. With the growing interest in T5's I don't know why Tek would change the ballast from Triad to WH on their "new improved" version if it were detrimental to overall performance.

I had some time to kill so I looked around for some info on this, it really is a bunch of hand waving.

The idea that the workhorse ballasts will give you shorter bulb life due to the "hard" start makes some sense. From that perspective though you need to reframe the question. If you are comparing a $40 mass produced part to a $180 Ice Cap specialty product it makes more sense to say that the Ice Cap gives extended bulb life. The only way you can make a good judgment is to get a decent idea just what "extended" is. If we're talking 10% then it would take quite a while to justify that extra $140 just based on this one aspect.

Has anyone ever found some numbers on this?

I have a good idea why tek went to these... Look around for ballasts for multiple t5 lamps - except for 54w's the majority of ballasts are only capable of firing 2.

more ballasts = more weight = more parts to stock... Workhorse 7 will drive 4, wh8 will drive 5. And isn't limited by length/wattage of the lamp.

Whole reason I'm looking at these is I want to drive a total of 20 lamps; the need for 10 ballasts is ridiculous!